“You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

-Donald Rumsfeld, 21st Secretary of Defense

To my fellow Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) peers, this course is an opportunity to understand our current Army and we can help shape it for the future fight. This is our Army. This is our moment to be stewards of the profession that we have invested a decade or more in. The Army most of us plan to be a part of for the next decade. Our life choices have led us here. Now is the time to stay switched on. While completing CGSOC, I propose three broad areas to focus on and think about. These include organizational leadership skills, stewardship of the profession, and personal goals. The Army gifted us an entire year for personal development and to contribute to our organization. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

Our Army requires writers and thinkers. It also requires expertise, but I am confident most of us are proficient in our respective occupational specialty. We made it this far. Now is the time to focus on skills vital to organizational leadership. Yes, this means strengthening written and oral communication ability. The expectation is for you to already excel at the email fight. Our future organizations demand more. The units you will lead require proficiency at drafting awards, evaluations, operation orders, and the occasional white paper. CGSOC provides numerous opportunities to improve our professional writing ability. Take advantage regardless of how good you think you are. The school has a writing improvement program for those willing to invest extra time. For those already excelling in this category, why not generate articles to your respective branch journal? You might also consider sharing your talent with classmates to help them sharpen their writing skills and perhaps publish themselves. Assisting a peer with their writing will also hone your own ability to quickly refine and edit products for your boss. This ties in nicely with building teams, also something organizational leaders do, but we just completed our Leadership 100 course, so you already knew that.

Speaking of courses, we can take advantage of the accumulated knowledge of our institution. The doctrinal heartbeat of the Army resides at Fort Leavenworth and we owe it to future generations to understand these models. It is difficult to improve something unless you are familiar with the concept’s evolution. We are committing our prime years to this profession and have an obligation to steward it. What an opportunity! An entire year to learn the nuances of a complex institution designed to defend the republic. Sure, some aspects such as the force management model are cumbersome; however, there are reasons to learn them. We cannot offer improvements unless we have a baseline first. Exposure to joint, interagency, and partnered operations is also invaluable to career growth and future opportunities. Because of their complexity and difficulty to replicate these concepts are an asymmetrical advantage for our nation. It gives us strength. Learn them. Understand how to integrate them. Do not be the friction that slows them down. If you feel there is an imbalance between the policy that guides these concepts and our doctrine, now is the opportunity to address it. You have the bandwidth now to deep dive the causes of friction points. Find the solution and offer it up. The agencies responsible for integrating solutions are right across the street and would love to hear what you have to offer. So too would the profession and the nation you defend.

This brings me to my final point, personal goals. As servants to the nation, our priority list is straightforward and dictated to us. Personal and family goals often go unaccomplished as a result. CGSOC offers ample opportunity to finally catch up (or at least put a dent in your to do list). At present there is no organized physical training requirement. Now you can have breakfast with your children and spouse and create a fitness regime tailored to your needs. You might also consider an elective course that aligns with your personal goals or interests. This is also the ideal time to take care of deferred physiological maintenance. Go get knee surgery or the physical therapy you put off. Arrive at your next unit ready to run. While you are recovering, tackle the reading list your mentors have suggested over the past few years. The books are likely to synchronize nicely with CGSOC curriculum. If they do not, be selfish in the classroom. Leverage the community of dedicated faculty to better understand your information gaps. These professionals won the and the Army’s shift towards large scale combat operations is their wheelhouse. Take their hard-won lessons and shape it for tomorrow’s fight.

Certainly, our nation will call on us soon to solve the next complex national security problem. Our nation values the individual contribution you bring to the fight. But you must bring something. Now is the time to prepare the Army we wish to have in the future. Every push-up today helps you on that future fitness test. Likewise, the more joint doctrine you understand now, the better prepared you will be in the joint fight. Come drink the Kool-Aid. If you do not like the flavor do something about it. This is your Army. CGSOC is the time to develop organizational leadership skills, steward the profession, and  focus on personal goals. I look forward to the optimism and dedication each of you bring. Now let’s go make this the best year of our life.

Maj. George Fust is a military intelligence officer currently attending the Command and General Staff Officer College. He previously taught in the Social Sciences Department at the US Military Academy at West Point. He holds a master’s degree in political science from Duke University and has contributed to a variety of publications.

The post A Letter to My CGSOC Peers appeared first on The Field Grade Leader.

This is Part 2 of an 8 Part Series. The full and unredacted article with all enclosures is available on Milsuite at https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/abct-training

Operationalized Multi-Echelon Training

Time is a finite resource and units cannot simply add requirements to training calendars that are already overloaded. Increasing lethality and the ability of ABCTs to synchronize all WfFs requires multi-echelon training with clearly defined objectives and outcomes. During a properly designed company live-fire certification, an infantry company—the primary training audience— will train on all of its assigned METs. Additionally, that training event provides an opportunity for the parent battalion to establish its own Main Command Post (CP), Tactical Command Post (TAC), Combat Trains Command Post (CTCP), and Field Trains Command Post (FTCP) while validating current operations functions at each node. The company has an opportunity to deploy its CP and company trains. By evaluating the infantry company on its performance while receiving a Logistics Package (LOGPAC) at a Logistics Release Point (LRP) during a service station resupply, the distribution platoon and Forward Support Company (FSC) for the battalion can demonstrate proper tactics and validate their SOPs. The brigade trains the Brigade Aviation Element (BAE) and Fire Support Element (FSE) on managing airspace and de-conflicting fires by incorporating lift aviation, attack aviation, artillery, mortars, Shadow Unmanned Aerial System (UAS), and Raven UAS into the company live fire. Sappers from the Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB) participate and integrate into the company by conducting a combined arms breach. By executing all of these events at the same time, the ABCT builds readiness and lethality across multiple echelons in one training event.

Opportunities for multi-echelon training extend beyond the organic ABCT. Despite the robust capabilities housed within the ABCT, it depends on numerous enabling capabilities. All units in the brigade must efficiently integrate attachments and detach elements to other units. Battalions and companies need enabling capabilities, and they will only integrate them successfully through repetition and training. In a company live-fire, a Military Police (MP) company from the corps MP brigade can certify their squads and train several of their own METs. By attaching an MP squad to each Company and using a supporting CAB to add role players as Internally Displaced Persons, the MPs can train their squads on performing route regulation enforcement, conducting roadblocks and checkpoints, and performing civil disturbance control to enable the Infantry Company as it clears the objective. By adding detainees on the objective, that same MP squad can train on receiving detainees and conducting Detainee Collection Point (DCP) operations. This opens up opportunities to train the Brigade’s Military Intelligence Company on HUMINT operations at a Detainee Collection Point. Training objectives should be discussed early in the exercise design and through multiple iterations of commander dialogue during training meetings and between staff at MDMP. All available enabling capabilities, assets, and echelons should develop specific training objectives to enable them to orient on the tasks they are training.

The value of this example is that the training is operationalized for all units in a way that replicates how they actually fight. The MP squad links in with the rifle company while the company executes Troop Leading Procedures (TLPs). The infantry company exercises the enabler integration checklist in their TACSOP and assigns a leader to supervise that integration while preparing for the mission. The MP squad obtains the infantry company’s radio frequencies and loads their radios with the same COMSEC fill to communicate on the battlefield. To do this, the brigade COMSEC account must account for attachments and assign them frequencies on the Brigade Signal Operating Instructions (SOI). The infantry company includes the MP squad in their headcount to ensure they have adequate food. The infantry company Field Maintenance Team (FMT) identifies what unique equipment the MPs have that they do not have resources to repair or recover. The company XO ensures the parent battalion adds the MP’s equipment into Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-A). The battalion S4 includes the MP’s ammunition in their forecast and ensures the FSC distributes it. All of these seemingly small details require repetition and practice to get right. They are not trained with virtual or constructive training and if units do not execute these tasks routinely to standard, they will fail.

These generalized examples help frame the problem but do not provide unit commanders or staff with a starting place for building training plans that prepare them for combat. Ultimately, the training outlined in the CATS and TC 3-20.0, Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, is a necessary guideline, but not sufficient to ensure ABCTs prepare to fight and win during Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO). During the course of an 18-month ABCT Training progression, there are multiple opportunities to conduct multi-echelon training and integrate external enablers during crew gunnery, Lethality Validation Exercises (LVEs), platoon LFXs, company LFXs / Combined Arms Live-Fire Exercises (CALFEXs), and brigade Field Training Exercises (FTXs). The following will help commanders visualize and enable staff to operationalize opportunities for building lethality.

Tough, Realistic Training

Seven years after returning to focus on LSCO, Army units have made significant strides in building and maintaining readiness and lethality at the individual trooper, crew, platoon, and company level. However, units struggle to bring all of the capabilities in their formations to bear. Tank platoons conduct satisfactory fire and maneuver of their platforms, but they struggle to conduct resupply operations to standard or synchronize fires with maneuver against the enemy in training. Battalions struggle to maintain Fully Mission Capable (FMC) combat platforms while deployed to the field. Against a threat with Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) detection and denial capabilities, companies do not understand their own electromagnetic signature, do not have adequate SOPs to mitigate the size of that signature, and do not know how to execute the battle drills in their SOPs. Battalions struggle to conduct the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) effectively or efficiently, and field grade leaders drown when they attempt to supervise simultaneous planning and current operations efforts. Across the ABCT, units struggle to establish effective CPs and sustainment nodes, appropriately position key leaders, route fire missions from scouts in Observation Posts (OPs) back to artillery over High Frequency (HF) or Frequency Modulation (FM) communications, and generally struggle to synchronize the capabilities resident in the ABCT at the pace that LSCO demands.

Below is an outline of an ABCT training template, including ways in which the IRONHORSE BCT incorporates divisional enablers, corps separate brigade capabilities, joint capabilities, and the interagency into training as a model to assist other ABCTs.  A suitable template assumes 12 months for an ABCT to prepare for a deployment to the National Training Center. However, this timeframe varies from eight to sixteen months and will be determined by external requirements.

Figure 3: The 1CD Brigade Training Template used as a DOCTEMP for a BCT’s Training Progression (Unredacted version available on MilSuite)

The 1CD Brigade Training template is effective as a DOCTEMP for training, but every BCT’s training progression must overlay on top of the circumstances of the BCT. Deployments, Combined Training Center (CTC) rotations, major taskings (CTC support, Cadet Summer Training (CST) / Deployment Readiness Exercises (DREs), etc), and budgetary constraints all impact the training progression. The transition of personnel under the Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM), combined with summer and winter move cycles, results in high levels of leader and Trooper turnover. Brigade and battalion leaders must analyze the impacts of these transitions on unit certifications as outlined in TC 3-20.0, Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, as they place training events in the calendar.

Before beginning the training plan, the commander and staff must forecast the impacts that taskings and personnel turnover have to their training plan and mitigate those impacts through coordination with the G3 and Division Commander. Transitions, taskings, and other timelines may result in a determination that a training progression that includes a brigade FTX prior to an NTC rotation is too ambitious. In such a case, the Brigade Commander should consider what echelon of training he should attain. Fewer, high-quality training events far exceed “check the block” training. Regardless of what level a brigade trains to, the following principles and best practices apply to all training design.

The 1CD Brigade Training Model offers an effective template for sequencing events to enable an ABCT to train to win in LSCO. By understanding and adapting this model to a brigade’s specific requirements, BCTs can frame, plan, and resource a training progression months in advance. This planning and resourcing include outreach to corps separate enabling brigades (especially engineer brigades, fires brigades, chemical brigades, air defense brigades, and military police brigades), the supporting Air Support Operations Squadron (ASOS), nearby fighter and bomber wings, Expeditionary Cyber Teams (ECTs), and others that may provide enabling capabilities to tactical formations. Frequently, those units are planning their own training that overlays in time with the ABCT, and by reaching out and discussing training objectives, all units leave better trained for roughly the same cost. The brigade must initiate this coordination at least six months before training events and set a series of IPRs for all units to agree to train objectives, resource requirements, and the design of the training event.

Continue the conversation on Twitter (#CAVLethal)!

Disclaimer

This series is a fusion of doctrine and regulations with the authors’ experience in training and warfighting. It does not constitute the official position of FORSCOM, TRADOC, the Army, or the Department of Defense.

COL Michael Schoenfeldt is the Commander of the IRONHORSE Brigade Combat Team (1ABCT, 1CD) with 23 years of experience as an Army Officer including Tank Platoon Leader, Tank Company Commander, Cavalry Squadron Executive Officer, Brigade Executive Officer, and Combined Arms Battalion Commander. He can be reached at michael.d.schoenfeldt.mil@mail.mil.

MAJ Patrick Stallings is currently the Cavalry Squadron Operations Trainer at the National Training Center and was the Brigade S3 for the IRONHORSE Brigade Combat Team (1ABCT, 1CD) with 15 years of experience as an Army Officer including Armored Reconnaissance Platoon Leader, Stryker Reconnaissance Troop Commander, and Cavalry Squadron Executive Officer. He can be reached at michael.p.stallings4.mil@mail.mil.

The full paper and files below are available at https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/abct-training

• Embedded Charts (includes full-page slides of each figure in this paper)
• IRONHORSE Playbook
• 1CD Brigade Training Model Information Paper.docx
• DA Big 12
• Crew Gunnery Administrative OPORD (IRONHORSE Smoothbore)

5A) Crew Gunnery Administrative OPORD Brief (IRONHORSE Smoothbore)

• Platoon LFX and CALFEX Administrative OPORD (IRONHORSE Fury)
• Wet Gap Crossing Tactical OPORD (IRONHORSE Fury Phase 0)
• CALFEX Tactical OPORD (IRONHORSE Fury Phase I – IV)
• CALFEX OC Packet Example
• FCX Tactical OPORD (IRONHORSE Fury 2.0)
• Brigade FTX Administrative OPORD

The post Part 2: Got Shock? How to Train your Brigade for Lethality and Winning in Large Scale Combat Operations appeared first on The Field Grade Leader.

The purpose of this article is to provide an examination and evaluation of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) 2020 academic year. Three officers, from three different sections, evaluated virtually all aspects of the academic year.  We chose to use three perspectives to provide a more expansive insight into a year at CGSC.  Often one person’s perspective can be dismissed as anecdotal and this was our attempt to offer legitimacy to the evaluation. This evaluation includes our assessment of the day-to-day classroom instruction, administrative elements of CGSC, and garrison activities of Fort Leavenworth. Our examination does not include an evaluation of all aspects of CGSC. For example, none of us participated in the Masters of Military Arts and Sciences (MMAS) degree program, and all three of us lived on Fort Leavenworth.  Each section will show the average grade based on all three of our evaluations and then provide our assessments and comments. For our evaluation, we based the format on that of MAJ Jamie Schwandt, USAR, used for an article he wrote for the Task and Purpose in 2018. 

Administrative: B+

Billy: A-

This evaluation is mainly based upon my Staff Group Adjutant (SG ADJ), she was the difference in admin actions for our staff group.  Use your SG ADJ to your full advantage, the good ones will make miracles happen with USSD.  In-processing was incredibly easy, but USSD seemed to have their own processes at times and this was frustrating.  For example the use of Blackboard and the Student Accountability Tracking System (SATS) makes little sense.  It is seemingly insignificant, but it seems to be the center of so many complaints and conversations at CGSC it will surprise you.  

Paul: B+

The administrative process went about as well as I expected; in-processing was well planned and executed. My staff group adjutant was well-informed and helpful.  I didn’t think the PCS process was too complicated; however, I had a CONUS move and no extenuating family circumstances.

Phil: B+

The CGSC staff and student adjutants completed administrative actions quickly, in-and-out processing was smooth and efficient, and even time-consuming tasks like body composition testing and urinalysis were relatively painless. 

The only reason this isn’t an “A” is because of the bizarre method used for accountability and the difficulty in finding things on Blackboard. The online student accountability tracking system (SATS) elicits strong opinions. I understand the need to maintain the accountability of students, but SATS is used in a manner that defeats the intended purpose and doesn’t line up with our Mission Command doctrine.

Finding things on Blackboard ranges from simple to incredibly complicated. I wasted a great deal of time searching for a document, slide deck, required reading, or test only to eventually abandon hope and ask someone in our staff group chat room where it was.

Academics: B 

Billy: B-

This grade is in the middle because CGSC academics were a mixed bag of great, average, and bad. There is a lot of conflicting guidance and climate on whether this is more training or education or vice versa. The pursuit of the master’s accreditation and X100 seemed to override the whole curriculum to its detriment.  The assessments used at CGSC seemed to rarely reinforce the capability gap identified for most field grades, which are oral and written communication skills.  Grades are heavily reliant on blackboard quizzes that are open book, and this method needs updating.  A recommendation to improve assessments would be to have students do written self reflections on reading twice a week and having two students at random present their reflections.  The all-consuming X100 was a detriment to Common Core because it seemed to dictate the learning outcome of every lesson, rather than allowing faculty to assess their students and instruct how they thought could best accomplish the learning outcome.  

Paul: B  

There was a lot of griping about the amount of reading, X100, and the elusive “Master of Operational Studies.” I would say that the amount of reading is necessary to get the most out of classroom discussion.  If you manage your time well, there is no reason that you need to miss any family dinners or burn the midnight oil to prepare for class.  X100—while painful—forced students to study and retain Common Core information. 

Phil: B+

I think academics were above average at CGSC. I agree with Billy that the pursuit of master’s accreditation by the school was detrimental to some degree. It was the primary point of discussion throughout the year. I do not have a strong opinion on the value of a master’s degree from CGSC. I think it will check the box for having a master’s but will not set anyone apart from their peers.

Tactics Classes and Planning Exercises: B+

Billy: B+

The classes were not the best but they did serve as an opportunity to read and reflect on doctrine, especially with the shift to Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO).  The practical exercises were good, especially when you are in a leadership or primary staff role.  A recommendation for incoming students who are out of practice or may never have done MDMP – get back in the books prior to arriving.  Also do not be afraid to throw yourself into the fray and ask your classmates for help during these exercises.  Do not hide in the background and waste the opportunity to get better.

Paul: A

Classes had a propensity to be a bit dry.  As a maneuver officer, I knew a lot of the information; however, it was nice to get a doctrinal refresher.  During planning exercises, I was regularly assigned as an S3 or an XO, so I was lucky to get a large number of repetitions that will help me prepare for my KD role.  Additionally, my staff group was lucky enough to participate in Operation Eagle-Owl, which gave us an excellent opportunity to plan with our British allies for two weeks.

Phil: B+

I was fortunate to have great DTAC instructors. These instructors, in combination with previous assignments and the Maneuver Captain’s Career Course (MCCC), set me up for success at CGSC. I thought these classes were a good refresher and also enabled planning for large scale combat. 

The planning exercises at CGSC were very similar to the battalion phase of MCCC. I was lucky to serve in a wide range of staff positions during planning exercises. Unfortunately, some of my classmates didn’t get rotated to different positions outside of their branch. Further scenario refinement and injects from a white cell during planning exercises would help make the exercises more realistic and force critical and creative thinking. 

History Classes: A

Billy: A-

The history class topics were awesome.  The readings for history were some of the best in the course.  The topics also sparked some great conversations and provided a fantastic foundation on LSCO.  Unfortunately, X100 again rears its ugly head and takes away from learning and applying history outside of Clausewitz’s trinity and a few other “foot stomp” points.  

Paul: A+

My instructor was phenomenal; the discussions were engaging and thought-provoking.  The instructor organized the class in a manner that allowed us to cover a wide swath of information that applies to our profession’s current operational environment.

Phil:  A

My history instructor for Common Core and AOC was very competent. I also took three history electives with equally impressive instructors. The information presented through lectures, readings, and discussion was one of the highlights of the entire school year. 

Leadership Classes: B+

Billy: A

Much like history, the assigned readings were worth every minute. My instructor was incredible and really did a great job of getting the most out of our discussions. CGSC should do more instruction on ethical leadership. We continuously see failings of ethical leadership in the Army and it is surprising we think two lessons discussing ethics is good enough during PME.

Paul: A-

My staff group had a positive experience with our leadership course.  The instruction pulled the most discussion—good and bad—from our leadership blocks.  If anything, it gave me a glimpse into the psyche of some of my peers and offered fresh perspectives for how others handled difficult leadership situations.

Phil: B

Both leadership instructors I had were excellent, but some of the vignettes used during Common Core were odd choices. On several blocks of instruction, I struggled to relate the outcome for the lesson to the vignette or the discussion. During AOC, we transitioned to learning about the “Art of Command.” I think separating the AOC portion of leadership into two blocks and adding instruction on developing subordinate leaders would be more beneficial than having all of AOC dedicated to the “Art of Command.”

Force Management and Logistics Classes: B

Billy: A+

These classes were where I learned the most about “how the Army works” and how/why we get the “stuff” we do.  Again I had an incredible instructor who really had a passion for this material and he turned some of the most painful classes into a great learning experience.  This is where you will make that push for being able to do the “next-level” of staff work.  These classes can be rough, but I ultimately learned the most from them and provided the most context on how the Army runs. I do believe the quality of my staff group’s instructor had a huge impact on this portion of CGSC, reinforcing my belief that your instructor will make the difference.               

Paul: B

Force management is boring. Look, it’s hard to be passionate about Force Management. It’s got a face only an FA50 can love. I never thought I’d hate flow charts so much. However, the reality is that majors need to know how the Army runs so we can run it. It was my least favorite course but, alas, it is a necessary evil.  That said, I had a quality Logistics instructor who made it as digestible as possible.  Additionally, the logistics instruction was top-notch.  I had a lot of “ah-ha” moments because I have never been exposed to large-scale logistical operations–particularly, deploying a division.  

Phil: C+

DLRO instructors are very good at teaching logistics and sustainment, but the Force Management curriculum is challenging to teach and understand. Force management is an important subject, and it must be taught at CGSC. I learned more in these courses than in any other block of instruction, but the curriculum needs review to ensure it is meeting the intent in developing field grade leaders from all branches of services in how the Army and the DOD run.

DJIMO Classes: A-

Billy: A-

The intro to “jointness” was necessary and enlightening. Again, the only detriment to this instruction was X100, as it forced instructors to steer away from the discussion of students and to get into more specific topics rather than the deeper discussions that may impact careers in the future.

Paul: A

DJIMO instruction did a good job, making us see the “bigger picture.” The curriculum was a bit on the dry side, and you see that you’re a little fish in a big pond.  I only had one sister service officer in my staff group; however, his perspective was enlightening and value-added during our joint instruction.

Phil: B+

DJIMO classes are taught throughout Common Core and AOC. Most cover a single topic such as, CAS, Space, Cyber, and Joint Operations. Classes about the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) are longer, but for most of my staff group, it was our first exposure to JOPP, so the extra time made sense. 

The most significant improvement needed within DJIMO is the need for additional instruction on electronic warfare. I don’t think that our class has a firm understanding of the differences between cyber, EW, or information operations, and how they can help shape the fight at the operational and tactical level.

Electives B+

Billy: B+

I went into electives with most required credits completed and was given a really interesting opportunity to do a self-study looking at the CGSC curriculum.  What does that mean to you?  Do what you want to do during electives.  Some will tell you not to waste your time with history or anything not directly related to being an S3 or XO, and that is wrong.  Electives provided an opportunity to do something that you were truly passionate about and broaden in ways you think are necessary.  Since my class load was so light I was able to cruise through my own reading list that I had neglected during the rest of the academic year.

Paul: B+

COVID made our elective experience a bit different.  I had to take a few courses that I did not originally plan to take because the originals were canceled.  However, there was still a multitude of courses that were available to help me prepare for KD time.  My primary focus for course selection were courses that I thought would best help for S3/XO time.  Given the circumstances, the experience was positive.  Every instructor took the online learning environment seriously and made it as user-friendly as possible.

Phil: A

I took four electives over the two terms. Two of these courses, “Great Campaigns” and “Evolution of Military Thought” were prerequisite courses for SAMS. Both were exceptional. I also took “The Field Grade Role in MDMP” and “20th Century Urban Operations”. “The Field Grade Role in MDMP” was taught by DTAC instructors and should be the standard for how a CGSC class is taught via distance learning. It was well taught, organized, and interactive. It is a great elective to take if you want to be able to immediately contribute and lead a staff as a field grade officer. I took “20th Century Urban Operations” primarily because of the instructor. He was my history instructor for Common Core and AOC and is incredibly knowledgeable and teaches in a manner that ensures understanding.  

Faculty: A-

Billy: B+

My Staff Group faculty was an A+. When we got outside our three instructors, the experience was vastly different. Hearing stories from other people about their faculty was shocking at times. Your faculty will heavily influence the quality of your experience at CGSC and you will have to evaluate how you need to fill the holes in your education and training.  The faculty that are truly great will provide you opportunities to take care of your family and navigate the sometimes silly administrative requirements to ensure you accomplish this.

Paul: A

I’d be lying if I said my instructors made me want to stand on my desk and declare, “O Captain, My Captain!” at the end of the school day.  They weren’t always 100% prepared, and on occasion, they would express open contempt for the curriculum writers.  I get it. We’re all human.  The reason I give them an “A” is because I think they sincerely believe in the importance of their role in our professional development and the betterment of the Army and Joint force.  They were approachable and took time to answer questions that make CGSC a positive experience.

Phil: A  

Virtually every instructor I had during the year was exceptional. I know that there are poor instructors at CGSC, but I had very little exposure to them. My only criticism is that instructors at the staff group level don’t have enough input or flexibility in how the curriculum is developed and taught.

Grading: C+  

Billy: C+

Grading seemed completely arbitrary despite the use of rubrics.  Depending on the instructor, the feedback was from barely existent to really good.  This was completely dependent upon the relationship with and quality of the instructor.  Again the Blackboard quizzes were a complete waste of time and seemed to receive a lot of emphasis despite their low quality.

Paul: C+

Grading is probably my biggest gripe.  I didn’t mind the papers, presentations, or assignments that applied to our future jobs—writing running estimates and commander’s intent.  Those assignments should be expected for graduate-level work.  It was the multiple-choice, open-book, open-notes Blackboard exams that were mainly an exercise in “who can CTL-F the fastest.” They have got to go. 

Phil: B

With one or two exceptions, the grades I received reflected my understanding of the material and the quality of my work. However, grades for class participation, written assignments, and staff work during exercises were not assessed consistently or had confusing standards throughout the school year. I didn’t really mind the Blackboard exams, but I think they should primarily be closed book exams similar to the X100 and Master Tactician tests.    

Everything Else:

Physical Training (PT): B+

Billy: B+ 

There is no necessity to do organized PT at CGSC, and thankfully it was changed.  PT should be an opportunity to better yourself and demonstrate your commitment as a leader.  The gyms are adequate and if you plan your time you can get some great informal PT done with your peers multiple times a week.  Be creative and take the time to work on your overall fitness (emotional, mental, and spiritual) while at CGSC.  A max ACFT score will be great as a field-grade, but will not be the only thing you need to be successful.

Paul: A

You’re all adults.  If you can’t take responsibility to keep yourself in shape…well, maybe it’s time for a new J-O-B.  Gruber and Harney Gyms have everything you need to be successful; the new ACFT facility has everything you need to train for and conduct an ACFT, and there are plenty of quiet areas to go for a run on a cool Fort Leavenworth morning.

Phil: B+

I had no issues with either of the physical fitness policies at CGSC. Initially, there was only flexibility with the times and the program. This policy changed when LTG Rainey took command. His policy allowed small groups and sections to determine the frequency of organized PT. With both policies, I felt I was able to meet my fitness goals and was treated like an adult and future field grade officer. I never conducted Director PT with COL Green, but the feedback I got from officers in our section that attended said it was a great workout and a useful forum for discussing class issues.   

Fort Leavenworth Garrison: B+

Billy: B+

Some services on post were incredible when you requested help, and others were not so much.  Overall, the Garrison did a good job handling this year’s exceptional circumstances and supporting the Soldiers, families, and the community.  Their position was not one to be envied and they rose to the occasion. One big gripe is the availability of medical appointments and the experience varied.  There are a lot of people trying to take care of their bodies during CGSC and the system can be overwhelmed causing delays, but the medical community does their utmost to reduce the issues.

Paul: A

I loved living on post.  It is the safest community on planet earth, and it takes about 4 minutes to get to school every morning.  I certainly don’t envy anyone in a garrison position in a pandemic environment.  That said, garrison leadership did a great job keeping us informed and on track to PCS.

Phil: B

The gyms get crowded quickly during PT hours and are showing their age. The new ACFT center is impressive and is a great addition. Fort Leavenworth doesn’t offer much medical support for dependents, especially expectant mothers. Housing on the post is above average, but the homes in the older villages are smaller and have more maintenance issues. On-base schools are some of the highest-ranked in Kansas. The post library is world-class and provides a quiet place with Wi-Fi to study seven days a week. All the other garrison activities my family dealt with were above average or better. Medical care for dependents on the post is what lowered my grade significantly.

Final Thoughts

Disagreement with our evaluations and comments is expected and welcome. As graduates, our goal is to improve CGSC for future classes. The three of us had generally positive experiences but there is always room for improvement. Our hope is that this article will spur discussion between CGSC leadership, faculty, alumni, and the current class. 

Major Billy Folinusz is a recent graduate of the Command General Staff Officer’s College.  He was commissioned as an Armor officer from James Madison University in 2009. He also holds a Masters of Public Policy from Temple University.  He is currently stationed at Fort Stewart with the 3rd Infantry Division.  He is married to his wife Theresa and the proud father of Theodore.

Major Paul Scifers is an Infantry Officer who has served in Airborne and Light formations. Upon graduation, he’ll serve in the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. He can be reached on DOD webmail and on Twitter @pfs8764.

Major Philip Henke is currently attending AMSP at SAMS. MAJ Henke is a Cyber and Electronic Warfare Officer who began his commissioned service in the Infantry. He most recently served as the Cyber and Electronic Warfare Operations Officer for the 7th Special Forces Group. MAJ Henke attended Kansas State University and is currently a graduate student at Indiana University pursuing a Master’s degree in Cybersecurity. He can be reached on DOD webmail and on Twitter @PhilipHenke 

The post Reflections on the Command General Staff College appeared first on The Field Grade Leader.